Conspiracies: Denialism or Scepticism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hugo
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 160
  • Views Views 20K
H

Hugo

Account Disabled
Messages
1,528
Reaction score
72
This is a thread about avoiding the truth by a process of denial justified by wandering off into conspiracy theories. I hope we can discuss this because it has religious implications and implications for how we see the world, especially those parts of it we might not like or conversely that we love and how that disposes us to the truth. Here is something from New Scientist 15 May 2010.

HEARD the latest? The swine flu pandemic was a hoax: scientists, governments and the World Health Organization cooked it up in a vast conspiracy so that vaccine companies could make money. Never mind that the flu fulfilled every scientific condition for a pandemic, that thousands died, or that declaring a pandemic didn't provide huge scope for profiteering. A group of obscure European politicians concocted this conspiracy theory, and it is now doing the rounds even in educated circles.

This depressing tale is the latest incarnation of denialism, the systematic rejection of a body of science in favour of make-believe. There's a lot of it about, attacking evolution, global warming, tobacco research, HIV, vaccines-and now, it seems, flu. But why does it happen? What motivates people to retreat from the real world into denial.

The first thing to note is that denial finds its most fertile ground in areas where the science must be taken on trust. There is no denial of antibiotics, which visibly work. But there is denial of vaccines, which we are merely told will prevent diseases -diseases, moreover, which most of us have never seen, ironically because the vaccines work. Similarly, global warming, evolution and the link between tobacco and cancer must be taken on trust, usually on the word of scientists, doctors and other technical experts who many non-scientists see as arrogant and alien.

This is not necessarily malicious, or even explicitly anti-science. Indeed, the alternative explanations are usually portrayed as scientific. Nor is it willfully dishonest. It only requires people to think the way most people do: in terms of anecdote, emotion and cognitive short cuts. Denialist explanations may be couched in sciency language, but they rest on anecdotal evidence and the emotional appeal of regaining control.

I will post some further comments but its easy to see we can all become denialist, if Islam or Christianity is TRUE why do so many ignore it? Why does a Muslim or a Christian believe everything in Islam or Christianity is true?

So do you treat your own religion with absolute faith but deep scepticism about everyone else's, if so is this a reasonable position to take and where will it lead?

What do you think?
 
Last edited:
Marcelo Gleiser wrote a book called "A Tear at the Edge of creation: a radical new vision for life in an imperfect universe" and it is pertinent to this thread. Gleiser says that for centuries scientists have been searching for a single theory of the universe that reveals an elegantly simple order behind the apparent complexity of the natural world. This is a misguided mission, argues physicist and former "Unifier" Marcelo Gleiser of Dartmouth College. It is the messiness of the universe—not the beautiful symmetries—that holds the key to its origins. For example, Kepler's unified model of the cosmos proposed that the arrangement of the six planets then known could be understood as a tidy series of nested spheres and polyhedra.

How could someone so wrong be so utterly convinced of being right? We have much to learn from Kepler's mistake. In hindsight, it's easy for us to ridicule his creation. After all, there aren't six planets, but eight. If he could have seen them with the naked eye, he would never have proposed his model, and his career would have taken a different turn. Kepler's blindness was his blessing. He constructed a model of the world with the data he had available. At any given time, including ours, this is the best that anyone can do.

What we can measure will always limit our view of reality. Kepler's mistake was to give his vision of reality a finality it didn't deserve. Glimpsing at the hidden code of Nature proved so cathartic that he was bewitched and took his belief for the truth. Kepler's mistake was to forget that a final theory is impossible because we will never know all of reality. Then and now, any science that is tainted with blind belief will lead us astray.

So extending this can we be sure that the Bible or the Qu'ran or any other scripture be in any sense final, that God, if we believe at all in him has nothing more to to say or do we delude ourself as Kepler did because we let blind belief get in the way of facts as they emerge so we end up creating a conspiracy theory that amounts to saying 'only I have the truth' and any data that contradicts that must be false?
 
Last edited:
Hugo said:
This is a thread about avoiding the truth by a process of denial justified by wandering off into conspiracy theories. I hope we can discuss this because it has religious implications and implications for how we see the world, especially those parts of it we might not like or conversely that we love and how that disposes us to the truth. Here is something from New Scientist 15 May 2010.
Click to expand...
HEARD the latest? The swine flu pandemic was a hoax: scientists, governments and the World Health Organization cooked it up in a vast conspiracy so that vaccine companies could make money. Never mind that the flu fulfilled every scientific condition for a pandemic, that thousands died, or that declaring a pandemic didn't provide huge scope for profiteering. A group of obscure European politicians concocted this conspiracy theory, and it is now doing the rounds even in educated circles.
Click to expand...
Heard that Health workers including doctors were protesting against the swine flu vaccine?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-09-29-swine-flu-mandatory_N.htm

and the 'conspiracy theory' wasn't merely of money but far more sinister and I won't share it for our purposes here.
thousands didn't die of the swine flu' in fact, if you have received that regular yearly flu vaccine it would have been sufficient to cover you for some component of the 'swine flu' since thousands indeed died from the 'regular flu'

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/28/regular.flu/
There had been no confirmed deaths in the United States related to swine flu as of Tuesday afternoon. But another virus had killed thousands of people since January and is expected to keep killing hundreds of people every week for the rest of the year.
​
This depressing tale is the latest incarnation of denialism, the systematic rejection of a body of science in favour of make-believe. There's a lot of it about, attacking evolution, global warming, tobacco research, HIV, vaccines-and now, it seems, flu. But why does it happen? What motivates people to retreat from the real world into denial.
Click to expand...
That is just the thing, can a lay-man such as your person distinguish between a solid body of evidence and make believe?
I have demonstrated above that you fallaciously claimed 'the flu fulfilled every scientific condition for a pandemic, that thousands died, or that declaring a pandemic didn't provide huge scope for profiteering' so if you can't distinguish between what truly has the making of a pandemic and what is science fiction by what right do you have to rally people against or for 'evolution' or 'global warming' etc.?
There is a reason people dedicate a life-time in pursuit of science, and if the things were as clear cut as you make them out to be, there wouldn't be so many differing views coming out of the scientific community itself!
The first thing to note is that denial finds its most fertile ground in areas where the science must be taken on trust. There is no denial of antibiotics, which visibly work. But there is denial of vaccines, which we are merely told will prevent diseases -diseases, moreover, which most of us have never seen, ironically because the vaccines work. Similarly, global warming, evolution and the link between tobacco and cancer must be taken on trust, usually on the word of scientists, doctors and other technical experts who many non-scientists see as arrogant and alien.
Click to expand...
The problem is when you lump sum everything and paint it as an absolute and give yourself the liberty to discuss it in a very superficial level as if an expert are you not only likely to reach the wrong conclusion and disseminate it, but in fact see scientists, doctors and 'technical experts' as alien and arrogant. Nobody perhaps outside of a forum and even then will keep arguing repeatedly for or against something where another doesn't have all the facts and is adamant about a particular outcome to support personal views. In fact at least on behalf of doctors, they are much more humbled than all that.. Truly little knowledge is more dangerous than total ignorance!

all the best

 
Last edited:
τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ;1330340 said:
That is just the thing, can a lay-man such as your person distinguish between a solid body of evidence and make believe? I have demonstrated above that you fallaciously claimed 'the flu fulfilled every scientific condition for a pandemic, that thousands died, or that declaring a pandemic didn't provide huge scope for profiteering' so if you can't distinguish between what truly has the making of a pandemic and what is science fiction by what right do you have to rally people against or for 'evolution' or 'global warming' etc.? There is a reason people dedicate a life-time in pursuit of science, and if the things were as clear cut as you make them out to be, there wouldn't be so many differing views coming out of the scientific community itself!
Click to expand...
I am not quite sure what this post does but citing USA today and CNN is hardly choosing sites which one can rely on for unbiased scientific data and analysis so all you seem to have done is demonstrate your own propensity to go along with conspiracy theories. If you can demonstrate that the NS report is false do so and it is unwise to suppose that an internationally respect science magazine such as this would print lies. Why not visit the New Scientist web site and there you will find a large number of flu studies.

I am not 'rallying' any one against anything other than asking them to consider the issues, to show a little scepticism and get data from respectable scientific sources not CNN or some odd web site they may have found. Then they can draw their own conclusions.
The problem is when you lump sum everything and paint it as an absolute and give yourself the liberty to discuss it in a very superficial level as if an expert are you not only likely to reach the wrong conclusion and disseminate it, but in fact see scientists, doctors and 'technical experts' as alien and arrogant. Nobody perhaps outside of a forum and even then will keep arguing repeatedly for or against something where another doesn't have all the facts and is adamant about a particular outcome to support personal views. In fact at least on behalf of doctors, they are much more humbled than all that.. Truly little knowledge is more dangerous than total ignorance!
Click to expand...
This is a little incoherent and I am note sure if this is a statement of support for the basic premise of this thread that we must honestly examine the evidence and that evidence must come from accredited sources. The issues in many way is that here you seem to be advocating leaving it all to the experts but that would simply create a wedge and in any case no one is expert at everything. The whole point of this thread is to discuss denialism and how easy it is to be draw into a conspiracy web where truth become what our cabal believes.
 
You may find this interesting on the theme of this thread and it has been copied from New Scientist 15th May 2010. Interested to hear what you think or perhaps you have examples? The point about this list is that we all need to be aware of these essentially dishonest tactics and not get taken in by them and instead vigorously oppose them, indeed if you look though this board or others you may spot some of these tactics being used, it will not be easy to see them unless you are on your guard and are prepared to find out the truth. Be aware to that we all have a tendency to lean towards things we want to be true and might sweep under the carpet out doubts but that is a destructive and disreputable route so don't take it.

May Martin McKee, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine who also studies denial, has identified six tactics that all denialist movements use. "I'm not suggesting there is a manual somewhere, but one can see these elements, to varying degrees, in many settings," he says (The European journal of Public Health, vol 19, p2).

1. Allege that there's a conspiracy. Claim that scientific consensus has arisen through collusion ratherthan the accumulation of evidence.

2. Use fake experts to support your story. "Denial always starts with a cadre of pseudo-experts with some credentials that create a façade of credibility," says Seth Kalichman of the University of Connecticut.

3. Cherry-pick the evidence: trumpet whatever appears to support your case and ignore or rubbish the rest. Carry on trotting out supportive evidence even after it has been discredited.

4. Create impossible standards for your opponents. Claim that the existing evidence is not good enough and demand more. If your opponent comes up with evidence you have demanded, move the goalposts.

5. Use logical fallacies. Hitler opposed smoking, so anti-smoking measures are Nazi. Deliberately misrepresent the scientific consensus and then knock down your straw man.

6. Manufacture doubt. Falsely portray scientists as so divided that basing policy on their advice would be premature. Insist "both sides" must be heard and cry censorship when "dissenting" arguments or experts are rejected.
 
Last edited:
Hugo said:
You may find this interesting on the theme of this thread and it has been copied from New Scientist 15th May 2010. Interested to hear what you think or perhaps you have examples? The point about this list is that we all need to be aware of these essentially dishonest tactics and not get taken in by them and instead vigorously oppose them, indeed if you look though this board or others you may spot some of these tactics being used, it will not be easy to see them unless you are on your guard and are prepared to find out the truth. Be aware to that we all have a tendency to lean towards things we want to be true and might sweep under the carpet out doubts but that is a destructive and disreputable route so don't take it.
Click to expand...

It is indeed difficult to be objective, and I can appreciate that it is more difficult for some more than others, you yourself admitted in a not so distant thread that you can be emotive while being rational.
Problem with objectivity is it has to have some solid base in the subject matter and not a mere secondary or tertiary opinion based on some article.
Thousands of scientific articles are pushed forward each year, how do you sort through them and know which is a current 'fad' and which has solid results with data based evidence if all you have to rely on is your 'wit' 'someone's article' or 'popular opinion'?

May Martin McKee, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine who also studies denial, has identified six tactics that all denialist movements use. "I'm not suggesting there is a manual somewhere, but one can see these elements, to varying degrees, in many settings," he says (The European journal of Public Health, vol 19, p2).
Click to expand...
How does this relate to the topic?
1. Allege that there's a conspiracy. Claim that scientific consensus has arisen through collusion ratherthan the accumulation of evidence.

2. Use fake experts to support your story. "Denial always starts with a cadre of pseudo-experts with some credentials that create a façade of credibility," says Seth Kalichman of the University of Connecticut.

3. Cherry-pick the evidence: trumpet whatever appears to support your case and ignore or rubbish the rest. Carry on trotting out supportive evidence even after it has been discredited.
4. Create impossible standards for your opponents. Claim that the existing evidence is not good enough and demand more. If your opponent comes up with evidence you have demanded, move the goalposts.

5. Use logical fallacies. Hitler opposed smoking, so anti-smoking measures are Nazi. Deliberately misrepresent the scientific consensus and then knock down your straw man.

6. Manufacture doubt. Falsely portray scientists as so divided that basing policy on their advice would be premature. Insist "both sides" must be heard and cry censorship when "dissenting" arguments or experts are rejected.
Click to expand...

Indeed this happens often.. in fact more often than people think..
you can have ten clinical trials on a particular (for the purposes of this thread) a drug, with nine failures and one quasi impressive data, that research will be the one that is highlighted, celebrated, pushed on to the masses with absolute no mention of similar trials that have failed..
we have many types of biases in research and need to be properly identified, lead time bias, length time bias, selection bias etc. etc.
One thing I do appreciate at least is that even with all of this, it is still an art very much regulated to curb on the amount of errors and if you really wanted to, you can have a look at all the research on the matter, not the case with non FDA approved trials, private companies, and the general opinion of the masses.
Now it is also important to distinguish between data based evidence and theoretical science. Theoretically for instance a 'beta blocker' is probably the worse thing you can give someone in congestive heart failure because they exhibit negative inotropic effects and such a theory floated around and the use of beta blockers was contraindicated in the treatment of CHF, largely because heart failure was viewed primarily as a hemodynamic disorder. positive inotropic drugs produced only symptomatic relief but had no mortality benefits.. well it when experimentation with beta blockers that proved long-term use of these agents can improve left ventricular function, decreased left ventricular filling pressures and a reduced need for heart transplantation and demonstrated reductions in overall mortality.

we could have simply pushed out popular belief which is theoretically very scientifically sound, but that is because we were only looking at one side of the picture.

Science is ever changing and ever correcting, nothing is etched in stone, what we do today may probably seem like quackery to folks 600 years from now but at least with data based evidence we can justify our beliefs.. not so with 'theories' conspiracy form or otherwise and it is important to be have some basic knowledge of epidemiology/ statistics and types of research trials before adhering to one belief or another.. science really shouldn't be about beliefs regardless!

all the best
 
It is the nature of human beings to inquire and question. We are never satisfied save for a brief moment.

Paradoxical but beautifuly remarkable all the same; the thirst for knowledge and understanding that always leaves us wanting more.
 
τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ;1330679 said:
It is indeed difficult to be objective, and I can appreciate that it is more difficult for some more than others, you yourself admitted in a not so distant thread that you can be emotive while being rational.
Click to expand...
I think if you read my post you will find that emotions are tied up with making judgements and not rationality as such.
Problem with objectivity is it has to have some solid base in the subject matter and not a mere secondary or tertiary opinion based on some article. Thousands of scientific articles are pushed forward each year, how do you sort through them and know which is a current 'fad' and which has solid results with data based evidence if all you have to rely on is your 'wit' 'someone's article' or 'popular opinion'?
Click to expand...
Firstly, one does this by keeping up to date in ones own field , secondly relying on respected Journals and lastly we look for sound theory so that experiments can be repeated to confirm earlier results. In practice this means NOT just looking at data/results as they can be faked but also looking at methods and protocols used because if these are bad or unsuitable the results may well be worthless.

There are sadly many (far too many) well documented cases of scientific fraud where results have been 'improved' or negative results discarded and this is a scandal but these cases have almost always been uncovered by the scientific community itself. There are perhaps two books that are worth reading if you want to gain some insight on this.

"On Fact and Fraud" by David Goodstein, Princeton ISBN 978-0-691-139661 and "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre, Hraper-Collins, ISBN 978-0-00-728487-0

Now it is also important to distinguish between data based evidence and theoretical science. We could have simply pushed out popular belief which is theoretically very scientifically sound, but that is because we were only looking at one side of the picture. Science is ever changing and ever correcting, nothing is etched in stone, what we do today may probably seem like quackery to folks 600 years from now but at least with data based evidence we can justify our beliefs.. not so with 'theories' conspiracy form or otherwise and it is important to be have some basic knowledge of epidemiology/ statistics and types of research trials before adhering to one belief or another.. science really shouldn't be about beliefs regardless!
Click to expand...
This is not quite sound although I see your point. The way science progresses is by theory, theory that can be shown to be correct. The point is that a theory tells us what data to collect and this allows us to validate or otherwise the theory. If the theory can be validated by solid data evidence then we can make predictions and be certain of the outcome. So always in science there is a phase when one so to speak stumbles around seeking for a theory and that theory tells you what data to collect if its to be verified.

Einstein had a theory of relativity and although the kind of data to validate the theory was known, no one knew how to collect it and indeed it was to be another 11 years before that happened. In contrast with the illness of depression there is no consensus of what causes it, no theory. There have been several goes at it but none so far have been shown to be correct but that does not stop the drug companies pushing out all sorts of drugs to treat an illness with no known cause. This is where it gets hard and it is easy to see how drug companies might want to massage the data.
 
Last edited:
Hugo said:
I think if you read my post you will find that emotions are tied up with making judgements and not rationality as such.
find your post again for me then!

Firstly, one does this by keeping up to date in ones own field , secondly relying on respected Journals and lastly we look for sound theory so that experiments can be repeated to confirm earlier results. In practice this means NOT just looking at data/results as they can be faked but also looking at methods and protocols used because if these are bad or unsuitable the results may well be worthless.
Click to expand...
That sounds reasonable .. very few people in real life actually do so by nature of profession, scientists makeup only 1% of the population!
There are sadly many (far too many) well documented cases of scientific fraud where results have been 'improved' or negative results discarded and this is a scandal but these cases have almost always been uncovered by the scientific community itself. There are perhaps two books that are worth reading if you want to gain some insight on this.

"On Fact and Fraud" by David Goodstein, Princeton ISBN 978-0-691-139661 and "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre, Hraper-Collins, ISBN 978-0-00-728487-0
Click to expand...
agreed!

This is not quite sound although I see your point. The way science progresses is by theory, theory that can be shown to be correct. The point is that a theory tells us what data to collect and this allows us to validate or otherwise the theory. If the theory can be validated by solid data evidence then we can make predictions and be certain of the outcome. So always in science there is a phase when one so to speak stumbles around seeking for a theory and that theory tells you what data to collect if its to be verified.
Click to expand...

Indeed having a theory is getting half way there!
Einstein had a theory of relativity and although the kind of data to validate the theory was known, no one knew how to collect it and indeed it was to be another 11 years before that happened. In contrast with the illness of depression there is no consensus of what causes it, no theory. There have been several goes at it but none so far have been shown to be correct but that does not stop the drug companies pushing out all sorts of drugs to treat an illness with no known cause. This is where it gets hard and it is easy to see how drug companies might want to massage the data.
Click to expand...
True!

all the best!
 
I dont see what swine flu has anything to do with religion? Unless you're talking about those obscure sects that are against modern medicine?
 
Hugo said:
This is a thread about avoiding the truth by a process of denial justified by wandering off into conspiracy theories. I hope we can discuss this because it has religious implications and implications for how we see the world, especially those parts of it we might not like or conversely that we love and how that disposes us to the truth. Here is something from New Scientist 15 May 2010.

HEARD the latest? The swine flu pandemic was a hoax: scientists, governments and the World Health Organization cooked it up in a vast conspiracy so that vaccine companies could make money. Never mind that the flu fulfilled every scientific condition for a pandemic, that thousands died, or that declaring a pandemic didn't provide huge scope for profiteering. A group of obscure European politicians concocted this conspiracy theory, and it is now doing the rounds even in educated circles.

This depressing tale is the latest incarnation of denialism, the systematic rejection of a body of science in favour of make-believe. There's a lot of it about, attacking evolution, global warming, tobacco research, HIV, vaccines-and now, it seems, flu. But why does it happen? What motivates people to retreat from the real world into denial.

The first thing to note is that denial finds its most fertile ground in areas where the science must be taken on trust. There is no denial of antibiotics, which visibly work. But there is denial of vaccines, which we are merely told will prevent diseases -diseases, moreover, which most of us have never seen, ironically because the vaccines work. Similarly, global warming, evolution and the link between tobacco and cancer must be taken on trust, usually on the word of scientists, doctors and other technical experts who many non-scientists see as arrogant and alien.

This is not necessarily malicious, or even explicitly anti-science. Indeed, the alternative explanations are usually portrayed as scientific. Nor is it willfully dishonest. It only requires people to think the way most people do: in terms of anecdote, emotion and cognitive short cuts. Denialist explanations may be couched in sciency language, but they rest on anecdotal evidence and the emotional appeal of regaining control.

I will post some further comments but its easy to see we can all become denialist, if Islam or Christianity is TRUE why do so many ignore it? Why does a Muslim or a Christian believe everything in Islam or Christianity is true?

So do you treat your own religion with absolute faith but deep scepticism about everyone else's, if so is this a reasonable position to take and where will it lead?

What do you think?
Click to expand...

Conspiracy theory is silly. The people who come up with them are secular - they understand that there is something in the world that they are not taking into account - but instead of going to the simple straightforward understanding that any rational human being would accept - and that is that it is Allah doing everything and that we do not really have the ability to understand how things are working - we just need guidance.
 
Pygoscelis said:
I dont see what swine flu has anything to do with religion? Unless you're talking about those obscure sects that are against modern medicine?
Click to expand...
Most of us think that everything is to do with religion? But in this thread swine flu is just used as an example of where a conspiracy theory arose about big Pharma making money even when the scientific evidence was clear. This is not just about science but almost any aspect of life including religion. The point being that none of us are immune and unless we carefully look at what is presented to us we can be taken in - the moment you start to think YOU cannot be duped is the moment you are.

As an example, consider, if you are a Muslim and you find a Muslim sponsored web site then you are disposed to believe what it says. Similarly, if I say find a Christian web site I also am likely to trust it. Indeed, unless we are thoughtful we are likely to be taken in by anything that sounds like it supports our own views so for example, if you lean towards believing 9/11 was a government conspiracy it is more than likely you will put unfounded trust in anything that props up that view. But can you not see how unsafe that is, that you or I can be taken in, hence we must always be a little sceptical.
 
Last edited:
Gabriel Ibn Yus said:
Conspiracy theory is silly. The people who come up with them are secular - they understand that there is something in the world that they are not taking into account - but instead of going to the simple straightforward understanding that any rational human being would accept - and that is that it is Allah doing everything and that we do not really have the ability to understand how things are working - we just need guidance.
Click to expand...

Interesting, since here you have invented a conspiracy theory all by yourself - "Conspiracy theory is silly. The people who come up with them are secular".
 
Hugo said:
Most of us think that everything is to do with religion? But in this thread swine flu is just used as an example of where a conspiracy theory arose about big Pharma making money even when the scientific evidence was clear. This is not just about science but almost any aspect of life including religion. The point being that none of us are immune and unless we carefully look at what is presented to us we can be taken in - the moment you start to think YOU cannot be duped is the moment you are.

As an example, consider, if you are a Muslim and you find a Muslim sponsored web site then you are disposed to believe what it says. Similarly, if I say find a Christian web site I also am likely to trust it. Indeed, unless we are thoughtful we are likely to be taken in by anything that sounds like it supports our own views so for example, if you lean towards believing 9/11 was a government conspiracy it is more than likely you will put unfounded trust in anything that props up that view. But can you not see how unsafe that is, that you or I can be taken in, hence we must always be a little sceptical.
Click to expand...

You constantly contradict yourself, and I am not sure you are aware of that? A conspiracy is ''A secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act'' by its very nature it is an occult/cabal affair of which is hidden from most.. you are purposefully putting your head in the sand for an argumentum ad populum and even a child knows that a proposition isn't true simply because the majority of people believe it! or you simply use the terms to deflect away from some very painful questions which will require some thought from your end and it appears to me that you are not the sort of fellow who enjoys pioneering even if it be at a particular price!

all the best
 
τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ;1330944 said:
You constantly contradict yourself, and I am not sure you are aware of that? A conspiracy is ''A secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act'' by its very nature it is an occult/cabal affair of which is hidden from most.. you are purposefully putting your head in the sand for an argumentum ad populum and even a child knows that a proposition isn't true simply because the majority of people believe it! or you simply use the terms to deflect away from some very painful questions which will require some thought from your end and it appears to me that you are not the sort of fellow who enjoys pioneering even if it be at a particular price!
Click to expand...
I think you are completely missing the point. A conspiracy theory arises when people want to believe something, or when someone want a group to believe what they say. Ad populum is just one way that such a theory gets spread and so in effect they stick their heads in the sand and refuse to countenance and contrary evidence and instead starts to believe "everybody knows...".

Here it is sufficient to use Wikipeadia which has I think a very good summary or look at Jon Lewis's book "Cover-ups" (ISBN 9781845 296087) where he describes 100 conspiracies some true and some manufactured. But here we are speaking of 'conspiracy theories'; which are usually understood to mean according to Mintz "belief in the primacy of conspiracies in the unfolding of history which serves the needs of diverse political and social groups. It identifies elites, blames them for economic and social catastrophes, and assumes that things will be better once popular action can remove them from positions of power. As such, conspiracy theories do not typify a particular epoch or ideology".

The list of conspiracy theories covers clandestine government plans, elaborate murder plots, suppression of secret technology and knowledge, and other supposed schemes behind certain political, cultural, and historical events. While a conspiracy is defined by law as an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act, a conspiracy theory attempts to attribute the ultimate cause of an event (usually major political, social, historical, or cultural events), chain of events, or the concealment of causes from public knowledge, to a secret and often deceptive plan by a group of people or organizations.

In the UK only this week an example occurred where Andrew Wakefield was struck of the medical practitioner register because he linked autism and the MMR vaccine causing widespread panic as almost every one believed him yet his methods and data were both later shown to be seriously flawed and although it is 10 years since the publication he has been totally unable to validate his results and his findings have never been replicated. One has to remember here that his original paper was nevertheless published in the Lancet although subsequently it was withdrawn.

I have no idea at all what you are talking about when you say I am deflecting away questions in this thread and I cannot think what it is you are trying to say here that is relevant to what is being discussed?
 
Hugo said:
I think you are completely missing the point. A conspiracy theory arises when people want to believe something, or when someone want a group to believe what they say. Ad populum is just one way that such a theory gets spread and so in effect they stick their heads in the sand and refuse to countenance and contrary evidence and instead starts to believe "everybody knows...".
Click to expand...
I am not missing the point at all, rather you pick things that are in fact quite controversial with no clear elucidation and that is precisely why there is an entire air of suspicion surrounding them and label them under 'conspiracy theory'. If that is your take, you should in fact apply that around the entire of christianity for it's filled to the brim on hearsay, 'dreams' and events that taking place only because a group of believe want to believe it!
Here it is sufficient to use Wikipeadia which has I think a very good summary or look at Jon Lewis's book "Cover-ups" (ISBN 9781845 296087) where he describes 100 conspiracies some true and some manufactured. But here we are speaking of 'conspiracy theories'; which are usually understood to mean according to Mintz "belief in the primacy of conspiracies in the unfolding of history which serves the needs of diverse political and social groups. It identifies elites, blames them for economic and social catastrophes, and assumes that things will be better once popular action can remove them from positions of power. As such, conspiracy theories do not typify a particular epoch or ideology".
Click to expand...
I can't imagine what needs are served when requesting a bit more openness and information about things that affect ones life, livelihood and well-being in lieu of creating a frenzy and mass hysteria in fact I'll use your swine flu as an example here, not only did it not wreak the havoc predicted (and which you have erroneously assumed as causing thousands of death) but in fact and as usual thousands of people died of the regular flu than of the swine flu. requesting a bit more investigation and disseminating the correct information is a must when you are asking folks to put something in their body which was created almost overnight to meet with a need that never existed!
In the UK only this week an example occurred where Andrew Wakefield was struck of the medical practitioner register because he linked autism and the MMR vaccine causing widespread panic as almost every one believed him yet his methods and data were both later shown to be seriously flawed and although it is 10 years since the publication he has been totally unable to validate his results and his findings have never been replicated. One has to remember here that his original paper was nevertheless published in the Lancet although subsequently it was withdrawn.
Click to expand...
Yes I have read about that, he isn't alone in is pursuits, many brilliant doctors like Dr. John Martin with his work on stealth viruses came back and bit him in the behind in a major way, because he couldn't replicate the results he alleged in his labs. He is in fact a brilliant doctor, we don't know why he is unable to replicate his results on stealth viruses and unfortunately once someone is stereotyped as a menace it is very difficult for them to regain their old status.. be that as it may, two isolated incidents although not as black and white as all that shouldn't be a sort of one size fits all for anyone who does any sort of investigative work on the side and have be labeled as conspiracy.. in fact if you take a look at history you'd find that many so called 'conspiracy theories' proved true with time.. Dr. Addison who ended up committing suicide had describe the changes in skin pigmentation typical of what is now called Addison's disease with his colleagues at the time mocking him for no one can draw the relation between adrenal insufficiency and hyperpigmentation, and similarly dr. Ignaz Semmelweis research on the link between washing hands before surgery and its effects on mortality which to us seems so rudimentary was rejected as and I quote: '' improbable, shabbily researched and poorly argued''

bottom line is your subscription to something as sound and scientific or else a 'conspiracy theory' with your brand of absolution doesn't in fact speak for science, scientists or researchers, it speaks for what is popular and that is the is the very definition of stultification of progress and improper investigation!
I have no idea at all what you are talking about when you say I am deflecting away questions in this thread and I cannot think what it is you are trying to say here that is relevant to what is being discussed?
Click to expand...

see my very last reply!

all the best
 
Very interesting thread. I anticipate there will be differences of opinion expressed. Before we go too far let us all remember to agree to disagree without malice, give sources for what we quote and state what is our own opinion.

Just my opinion. Astagfirullah
 
Hugo said:
Most of us think that everything is to do with religion? But in this thread swine flu is just used as an example of where a conspiracy theory arose about big Pharma making money even when the scientific evidence was clear. This is not just about science but almost any aspect of life including religion. The point being that none of us are immune and unless we carefully look at what is presented to us we can be taken in - the moment you start to think YOU cannot be duped is the moment you are.

As an example, consider, if you are a Muslim and you find a Muslim sponsored web site then you are disposed to believe what it says. Similarly, if I say find a Christian web site I also am likely to trust it. Indeed, unless we are thoughtful we are likely to be taken in by anything that sounds like it supports our own views so for example, if you lean towards believing 9/11 was a government conspiracy it is more than likely you will put unfounded trust in anything that props up that view. But can you not see how unsafe that is, that you or I can be taken in, hence we must always be a little sceptical.
Click to expand...

Seems like a round-about shot at the concept of faith, which is the cornerstone of most religions. That is the only connection I see. Take something on authority, believe it because you want it to be true or its what your culture has always believed, etc.
 
I think the word "conspiracy" may lead folks away from your inteded meaning. Conspiracies are not necesarily delusions. Real conspiracies DO exist and happen with alarming frequency.

People do have an alarming tendency to believe things against all the evidence tho (or in extreme lack thereof), which I think is what you are getting at. Like that Barack Obama is a secret muslim plotting to destory the USA (I kid you not, I hear that one a lot and have given up trying to defend it) or that "there are no atheists in foxholes" (despite the rather lengthy list of atheist soldiers, even from the wars in which there were actual fox holes), etc. Sometimes people need to beleive something so bad that they will not look for contradictory evidence and suffer confirmation bias. Other times people just need to beleive something so bad that they shut their eyes tight and conjure up delusion. And of course there are the various reasoning traps people may fall into (ad populum, confusing causation with correlation, argument from authority, etc)

But then again, some really crazy sounding theories MAY be true. We shouldn't dismiss them out of hand, but instead apply proper scientific thought to them where possible. Don't believe for no good rational reason, but don't believe it can't be so either. Aliens could be out there, for example, and not just reached us yet.
 
Last edited:

Similar Threads

Back
Top